- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Capps Applauds Ruling Affirming Unconstitutionality of Proposition 8
Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, applauded the three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 opinion issued Tuesday upholding the 2010 ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
Proposition 8 was the 2008 ballot initiative that ended the brief period of marriage equality in California. Capps opposed the initiative.
In 2010, a federal U.S. District Court judge struck down Proposition 8, ruling it unconstitutional. Subsequently, marriage equality opponents appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Tuesday’s ruling addressed the merits of the case and whether the judge who issued the 2010 ruling, Judge Walker, should have been disqualified from the case on the basis of his personal life.
“Today’s ruling is a historic milestone in achieving full equality for all Americans, further confirming what so many Americans have known for some time now — that marriage is a fundamental right which cannot be denied to gay and lesbian couples,” Capps said. “Marriage equality is a necessary step to ensure the civil rights of lesbian and gay Americans and their full participation in our society. This decision sends a clear message to all LGBT Americans, but an especially positive one to LGBT youth — you are valued and worthy, your rights are equal to others and not less, and one day you, too, may grow up and marry your beloved. This is a good day for California and a wonderful day for equality.”
Capps is a vocal, longtime supporter of equality for gays and lesbians. She supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and is an original co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal provisions in DOMA that prevent same-sex couples who are married under state laws from receiving federal benefits.
Capps was also a leader on the issue of repealing the military’s discriminatory “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. A vice chair of the Congressional Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Equality Caucus, she supports full equality for LGBT Americans in essential civil rights areas, including but not limited to employment and housing discrimination, immigration status, federal benefits for families and creating safe schools for LGBT youth.
— Ashley Schapitl is press secretary for Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 02.07.12 @ 03:54 PM
Wow what a big surprise! Right, Lois the puppet and the 9th circus court, did anyone expect a different outcome? Lois will always parrot the liberal party line no matter how wrong it is and the 9th circus will always side with the small liberal band of whiners intent on ramming their life style down everyone else’s throat. Viva la tyranny of the minority.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.08.12 @ 12:04 AM
What a putz. I don’t think it is possible for Lois to be any more of the prototypical mindless radical leftist. God help us. Nitwit.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.08.12 @ 08:44 AM
Who cares if the ban was unconstitutional? Where do they think we live?
Bishop ANchove, I hope that you get a dog to protect you from liberals who would ram their lifestyle down your throat. What an image!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.08.12 @ 04:49 PM
The law was not unconstitutional and it was voted in by a majority of the people. The 9th circus decided to play legislator and God and tell people what it thought they should do. Liberals, always the first to scream bloody murder when the rights of voters are trampled, dismiss this tyranny of the minority when it suits their aberrant lifestyle. If you have a beef with that Rambo then lets here what it is rather than your stupid childish remarks.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.08.12 @ 10:51 PM
Bishop ANchove, you are confusing your terms. The tyranny of the MAJORITY, not the minority, is the term of use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
It happens when the will of the majority imposes itself on the rights of a minority. As with blacks at one time, as with women another, as with gay Americans now.
There is no tyranny of the minority. Although lately there seems to be a tyranny of the ignorant.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.08.12 @ 10:52 PM
And, by the way, Prop 8 is unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter if it was passed by a vote.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.09.12 @ 06:58 PM
Gad you are a piece of work mister spin doctor! No it is tyranny of the minority you clod, as in a minority of 10% trying to tell the rest of humanity how life should be lived. This is not about racism like you liberals want it to be. It is about a segment of the population with a really big sexual attraction problem ignoring that and then trying to convince everyone else to accept it. We are not talking about stripping anyone of their rights as was done with blacks. Its about telling that small minority they can’t change the definition of words and institutions so they can feel good about a biological problem.
I am all for the gay rights movement ending the horrific violence and bigotry that ignorant jerks impose on gays. I will stand up with them and fight for them to have a right to exist without shame and without being marginalized. But that is as far as it goes. At some point gays must reconcile their attraction with biology or no matter how much they are accommodated they will feel pain and suffering inside.
That is the difference between us pal. You want to enable, coddle and accept behavior that is dangerous and self destructive so people will like you. I prefer to tell them the truth and try to convince them to change, for their own good, even if they hate me for it. That is called compassion. I love my fellow man enough to tell them the truth, the same truth you know deep in side but deny.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.09.12 @ 08:57 PM
Rambler/Babbler is as incorrect as always. The legal grounds for this ruling are preposterous, the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to, and cannot be understood to compel a re-definition of marriage. If this gets taken up by the supreme court it should be a 9-0 ruling to overturn. There is a reason the 9th Circuit is always overturned, they don’t seem to be able to read the Constitution.
Of course for radical leftist/marxist/progressive/statists like the Babbler, the Constitution is an obstacle for implementing their vision of social justice and their destructive utopian fantasies. They can’t get the American people to go along with their plans at the ballot box so we’ll use radicals on the bench to jam it down their throats whether they want it or not.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.09.12 @ 11:58 PM
Well, I guess the eunuch ex-junkie and the ignoramus have spoken. Amen.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.10.12 @ 12:11 PM
Right, resisting ones own body chemistry makes you a eunuch, another witless remark from our resident clown. Man up Rambo. Try for once in your life to think with your brain and not your sex organs.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.10.12 @ 12:39 PM
Rambler,
It’s obvious you haven’t learned anything during your long and welcomed absence from these threads. Why you insist on embarrassing yourself with this mindless posts remains a mystery.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.10.12 @ 12:50 PM
“Man up?”
Your time as a junkie has likely left you without a sex drive and probably some other higher functions. Witness your long and ridiculous editorial blather on these pages. You should get help. This is not therapeutic, and may be driving you further into whatever madhouse you’re building.
Get a hobby.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.10.12 @ 01:45 PM
time for Rambler to get back on his meds and crawl back under his rock
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.10.12 @ 02:35 PM
Cardinal Witless, you and the sexless fogie are so similar. Maybe you were crackheads together?
He uses terms like “Gad” and “buster” as if speaking through a time warp tube connected to the 1950’s. Or earlier. Maybe too much Ayn Rand? And you, the “statist” chaser. Where did you get that stupid term from, anyway? Pope Bogus?
I really do attempt to understand your/his reasoning. Let’s see, if sex is only for procreation, then:
People who are impotent or sterile should not be allowed to have sex?
If so, what about marriage? If a marriage is only for procreation, then if a wife or husband cannot procreate, can they still have sex? Is it to be allowed?
If not, can they remain married?
What if, for instance, one member of the marriage has controlled his “body chemistry” so effectively that he has become a virtual eunuch? Can he remain married, or must he join a monastery?
In a marriage without procreation (if you do allow it) what does the institution represent? Are there legal benefits to the union? Does their gender have any bearing on this, given that it does not involve procreation?
If you allow that a man and a woman can be married without procreation, but with sex, what does that mean? Is it then a partnership and union that improves the situation of both? If so, why can’t this union exist between two women or two men?
Are you really having something jammed down your throat when two people are allowed to form such a union? I don’t think so. Stop being afraid of our gay brothers and sisters.
They are just people, and are as normal as you can be considered. Yes, they are normal. That’s why about the same percentage of every primate population (10%) is also homosexual.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.11.12 @ 05:15 PM
As usual Rambler you can’t seem to stay on topic. This ruling has nothing to do with sex, nothing.
It has to do with interpreting the law with regards to the state’s ability to decide what marriage means. The voters of CA decided to amend our Constitution to define marriage to be between a man and a woman. That was a Constitutional act. This ruling was based upon the 18K gay couples that married between the state supreme court saying gay marriage was OK and the voters saying no its not. Since they were married during the period when it was supposedly legal the 9th Circus Court decided that they couldn’t invalidate those marriages. Kind of like a squatter sitting on someone’s property long enough.
This ruling, if the Supreme Court takes it up, should be invalidated because they completely mangled the 14th amendment to make their justification.
Grow up and do a little homework before you spout off with your mindless nonsense.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.12.12 @ 10:30 AM
But Cardinal Witless, it IS about sex. Or maybe the lack of it.
Votes do not determine constitutionality. Prop 8 is a case of Tyranny of the Majority, denying equal rights to a minority. The Constitution says that we each have equal rights as individuals; It doesn’t say anything about sexual orientation.
The “definition of marriage” once included a husband’s ownership of his wife. It didn’t include a man and a woman if they were of different races. Those definitions were wrong because they were unconstitutional.
A married couple has rights under law, recognizing that their partnership is contributory to a whole that they own together. It allows them to protect one another and comfort one another. Couples (life partners) who don’t have the marriage contract are vulnerable to loss, whether they are gay or straight. Especially from the state and their estranged family members.
I hear you indignant homophobes rant about getting a lifestyle rammed down your throats. How can that be? If the gay couple down the street were to marry, how would that hurt you? Are you so concerned with the businesses and the bedrooms of others? With marriage banned, what’s your next step, persecution?
Prop 8 was put on the ballot by a minority. Mainly people with very strange ideas, like afterlives with planets and mansions and multiple wives. They spent enormous sums of money trying to convince Californians that same-sex marriage would destroy heterosexual marriage. They fed every homophobic bias and made this simple contract between two people sound like something that would hurt everyone.
Stop being afraid of your gay brothers and sisters.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.12.12 @ 01:12 PM
First Rambo, I never said anyone could not have any kind of sex they want, just that they are violating their own sex organ’s biological intent if that sex is not for making a baby. That is the basis of most sexual taboos. Just because we chemically or physically prevent these organs from fulfilling their intended purpose or engage in sex that cannot produce an offspring is no reason why you should indulge your self. Is that clear or do I need to speak in a much less adult vernacular for you to understand?
Second, biologically speaking, we have sex organs to procreate with. The majority of the population is attracted to the opposite sex so that these organs will do their job and create an offspring. A small minority has an anomalous attraction to the same sex, where by their sex organs become useless for their intended function. Your definition of this anomalous trait is “normal”. Is that the same for leukemia victims, cleft plate victims, those who are attracted to their mothers, brothers or sisters? You are not meant, biologically speaking, to use your sex organs for pleasure only and you are not meant, biologically speaking, to be attracted to the same sex. That is not the definition of normal that is the definition of abnormal. This is not a religious, political or personal view, its friggen biology. I hate having to be so blunt, I hate having to counter 40 years of denial, delusion and lies, but biology is what it is and your artificial means to subvert it for your own pleasure or condition is not healthy.
Unfortunately, there are some twits among us who treat people with abnormalities as though they are inferior or subhuman, they treat these people harshly, some times violently and those of us with compassion don’t like it. We seek out these twits and try to make them understand that having some condition that is not normal is not cause for derision and ridicule much like you have shown me for my past addiction. I hope you have enough humanity in you to see the gross hypocrisy you show here Rambo.
That said, there is no excuse what so ever for lying to 10% of the population and telling them they are normal when they are not. Those of us, who have had to deal with our own abnormalities, realize we are not like others and deal with either a permanent condition or trying to find a cure and are offend by such a lie. You show a typical malady yourself Rambo, a haughtiness, condescension and lack of compassion when you treat some abnormalities differently than others or lie about a condition someone has because you think that is compassion or will ingratiate you to them.
You have shown here for all to see that for you some conditions are given a pass and coddled, lied about and forced to be mainstreamed when others you chide, deride and insult. Not a pretty picture for someone who thinks so highly of himself. I on the other hand understand my gay brothers and sisters in a way you can’t because you live in a delusional world of denial. You enable, pander and coddle, but this is the worst form of hatred and bigotry, the insidious lie hidden behind a curtain of phony compassion.
I want my gay brothers and sisters to live free of shame, derision and ridicule. But I will not lie to them, pander to their condition or make excuses for it. I will not change the meaning of words, force others to accept a self destructive behavior simply to avoid hurting someone’s “feeling”. Those of you who have been through a life changing disease, condition or problem either personally or with a loved one know what I’m talking about.
Now then as for the sociology involved here, if a gay couple want to deny they have an attraction problem that goes against the natural order of biology, fine, cohabitate, get your jollies and if people want to treat you badly I will stand up for you, but don’t tell me I have to accept your behavior in dealing with your condition. It’s a lie and I care far too much for my fellow man to stand by and pander you so we can “feel” good while allowing the problem to persist or ignore that it is a problem. I doubt very seriously, given the chemistry involved in pair bonding that you can cure or change someone who is homosexual. I pray that isn’t so, but biology says otherwise. In that case I wish my gay brothers and sisters well and hope they realize how badly they have been treated by those pandering jerks, lying to their face in order to ingratiate them to the cause of the day.
Wireless good luck with this guy. He is nothing but a smug contrarian not at all interested in the truth. He only wants attention in the worst way.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.13.12 @ 09:27 AM
What you don’t understand is that sex can be enjoyed without procreation, and it was nature, or God, that gave us the ability to discover this. I guess drugs can be enjoyed similarly, without addiction. Not everyone who uses drugs becomes addicted, nor does everyone who has sex. In fact, most do not.
Our bodies produce endorphins in response to performing the sex act, being praised, being loved, or as self-reward for the accomplishment of a goal. All of these things involve positive acts: appreciating the body of a lover, being important to others, overcoming physical or mental challenges.
The drug addict is someone who wants the endorphin reward without the bother of a positive act. Drug use is more closely related to masturbation than sex, and is not necessarily bad unless it becomes the obsession. Homosexuals do not fall in this category, though you seem anxious to group them there so that you can expound.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.14.12 @ 02:30 AM
Rambler, are you aware that the reason Prop 8 passed is because huge majorities of Hispanics and African Americans voted for it. Are these people bigoted?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.15.12 @ 03:19 PM
Rambler,
This has nothing to do with sex at all. Get a grip on yourself and try, for once to actually discuss what is at issue. This is about whether the will of the people of CA is going to be respected or not. As usual you lefties run to courts to do your dirty work when the people reject your ideas. The 9th Circus Courts rational on equal protection is unlikely to survive a SOTUS review if they chose to take it up.
This guy does a thorough review of the ruling and why it is flawed:
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/02/15/the-proposition-8-decision-not-rational/
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Weather: A Few Clouds 60.0º
Search Noozhawk »
